Fabianism

[Immanuel Can]

My definition is bigger than yours.

He doesn't have one. I guess you'd say he's a "definition-eunuch."

[phyllo]

I wouldn't say that.

[Immanuel Can]

I wouldn't say that.

Yeah, maybe he has one...but whatever it is, he isn't proud of it, obviously.

[phyllo]

Are you proud of your definition?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you proud of your definition?

Oxford is. Cambridge is. Lots of other sources cite the same definition.

So why not?

[MikeNovack]

IC when we define "something" (attach a term to this "something") we have to agree about the existence of the "something". If we are talking about two different somethings, naturally our definitions clash.

If you really think you are ready to return to socialism (I think you're not)

a) When Lenin wrote Left Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder who is he writing against? Branches of "socialism" that did not exist? That do not still exist? Left vs right in THIS context means democratic vs authoritarian.

b) The branches of religious communism, what about them.

c) The utopian branches, past and surviving into the present.

I know what "state socialism" is (short for AUTHORITARIAN state socialism) and THAT is the "something" I recognize from your definition of "socialism". I also know that some WITHIN the authoritarian branches of socialism would agree with your definition (but many would not, would still consider wrongheaded socialists to be socialists)

What is your problem? Why do you NEED "all socialists are authoritarian socialists". Just because then you need only to say why authoritarianism is bad? I'm sure you will be able to find arguments against the various non-authoritarian branches (just might have to be different arguments, branch by branch)

Or to return to cats, stop saying the equivalent of "all cats are domestic cats" and "being domestic is essential to being a cat". << This IS what you are doing with respect to "socialism" >>

[Immanuel Can]

IC when we define "something" (attach a term to this "something") we have to agree about the existence of the "something". If we are talking about two different somethings, naturally our definitions clash.

Right. So let's see if your definition and mine are the same, so we can see if they clash.

Never mind. You're just making excuses. That you won't do it says everything I really need to know.

[phyllo]

Are you proud of your definition?

Oxford is. Cambridge is. Lots of other sources cite the same definition.

So why not?

You might as well be proud of the sack of potatoes you bought in the grocery store.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you proud of your definition?

Oxford is. Cambridge is. Lots of other sources cite the same definition.

So why not?

You might as well be proud of the sack of potatoes you bought in the grocery store.

Or of wasting time on exchanging petty aphorisms with you.

Rebuke accepted.